In the Northern Assurance Company of London v. Grand View Building Association case in 1906, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether an insurance policy could be voided due to misrepresentation or concealment by the insured party. The Grand View Building Association had taken out a fire insurance policy on a building from Northern Assurance Company of London but failed to disclose that there were other existing policies on the same property. When a fire occurred and they filed for claims, Northern Assurance refused payment arguing that non-disclosure constituted fraud which invalidated their contract under Missouri law where this incident took place. The court ruled in favor of Northern Assurance stating that while it is not necessary for an insurer to ask about every possible circumstance affecting risk assessment, material facts known only by one party should be disclosed without prompting as part of good faith dealings between parties entering into contracts. This ruling established precedent regarding duty of disclosure in insurance contracts.

In the dissenting opinion for Northern Assurance Company of London v. Grand View Building Association, it was argued that the insurance company should not be held liable for damages caused by a fire because the policy had been cancelled before the incident occurred. The dissenting justices believed that there was sufficient evidence to prove that notice of cancellation had been sent and received in due time. They also disagreed with majority's interpretation of "mail" as used in contract law, arguing instead that once an item is posted, it is considered delivered regardless if actual receipt can be proven or not. This principle known as 'postal rule' they believe should apply here since both parties are commercial entities familiar with such practices. Therefore, they felt strongly that holding Northern Assurance responsible under these circumstances would set a dangerous precedent and could potentially disrupt standard business operations.